Tour Permits

[Beavah]

Although I cannot find it in my BSA literature, I am sure we were told at Basic Scout Leader Training and at Woodbadge that you must file a tour permit to be covered by BSA insurance.

 

Yah, allangr, yeh got bad information from a poorly informed set of trainers who were ad libbing rather than following the training syllabus.

 

If you have auto insurance, your auto insurance will still cover you if you speed, if you run a red light, if you fail to yield to oncoming traffic, and even if you are drunk. That''s why you have auto insurance. The point when you need auto insurance is when you made a mistake.

 

Same deal with BSA insurance. The BSA makes a big promise to CO''s and volunteers. "We don''t want you to worry. If you volunteer for us, you should have no fear of lawsuits or other nonsense. We will be there for you." That''s a big part of our marketing to Chartered Orgs. and to volunteers. It''s important. Poorly informed trainers who pass along bad information like what you got do real harm to the organization. Our volunteers and CO''s get spooked enough about liability without some bunch of dunderheads addin'' to the confusion. Yeh have my permission to yell at them, eh?

 

there is some detail on the insurance and licensing requirements that are part of the permit.

 

Yah, troutmaster. BSA insurance is primary for all activities except for the riskiest one - driving a vehicle. For auto accidents, BSA insurance is excess coverage. Scouters'' individual auto insurance policies take the hit first, then BSA coverage kicks in if the auto insurance is exceeded.

 

So BSA wants some baseline minimum coverage on each vehicle. That way, the BSA coverage won''t come into play for most ordinary car accidents, only something fairly big. Keeps da cost down, eh? Doesn''t mean they won''t cover if for some reason a scouter is uninsured, but it does help cost containment-wise.

 

Beavah

 

[eagle90]

I can not see what the big aversion is to filling out a tour permit. It takes less than five minutes and I understand that soon we will be able to do it totally electronically, eliminating the paper totally. I fill one out for everything outside of a normal meeting. NO BIG DEAL!!

[Oak Tree]

I''m with Eamonn. We likewise file tour permits, but I can''t see any value in them for us or for the council. I think BSA requires them primarily as a way to remind new leaders what the rules are.

 

Now, since this thread, like so many others, has turned to insurance...

 

On several council web sites you can find reference to BSA insurance, and that it covers everything except intentional or criminal acts. Which seems reasonable - if you intentionally wreck your uninsured car, you shouldn''t expect BSA to pay for it. If you sexually molest a child, I don''t think they should cover you there, either. In fact, I think that I''ve heard it''s illegal for an insurance company to insure against certain crimes like that, because we as a society don''t want people to be able to commit those crimes without fear of a lawsuit.

 

But one council goes further and adds this odd explanation of intentional.

"Intentional and criminal acts are not covered by the General Liability Insurance. Although criminal acts are fairly obvious, and we hope not a problem, intentional acts might need some explanation. Among other things, an intentional act would include conducting activities that are not authorized by the BSA or conducting activities in a manner contrary to the safety guidelines of the BSA. In these cases, the Boy Scouts of America covers volunteers only "at will." A leader, who intentionally acts contrary to BSA policy or guidelines, may find they are not backed by the Boy Scouts of America." See http://www.bsa-mdsc.org/hslllawsuits.php

 

My problem with that definition is that almost every act can be called "intentional". "Did you intentionally put the gasoline on the fire? Is it against BSA policy to put gasoline on a fire? So you intentionally committed an act that was against BSA policy?"

 

Beavah, from your descriptions, I''m guessing that you would say this council web site was written by someone who was adding their own incorrect interpretation to the actual rules. Is that right?

 

What I would really like to see is a list of all the lawsuits filed against Scouters in a given year, and which, if any, the BSA did not back. And how they came out.

 

For everyone who thinks that the BSA will not back you if you''re violating the G2SS, can you point to any example of this?

 

[FScouter]

"I can not see what the big aversion is to filling out a tour permit."

 

The ego and arrogance factor is at work. "Ain''t nobody gonna make me fill out no stinkin paperwork."

[Its Me]

Scouters,

 

No one wrote that tour permits shpuldn''t be filled out. There was merely an identification that they are not instruments of insurance. Most of the time our Council doesn''t even send it back to our unit. We have to ask that it get sent back. I would guess that 99% of the scouters who visit these forums are filling out tour permits.

 

 

 

 

 

[Eamonn]

Please, Please Do Continue to use all the forms and fill out ALL THE PAPERS NEEDED.

 

While I''m unsure what use Tour Permits serve.

If God forbid something should go wrong. - Maybe just maybe? By following the rules you if nothing else do come off as looking like a responsible trained leader.

 

Maybe just maybe? These do serve some real purpose, that maybe we just don''t know about.

 

I''m interested to know how you overcome the signatures if we start filing these via some electronic/computer method?

Ea.

[Oak Tree]

"The ego and arrogance factor is at work."

 

Yes, thanks for that kind interpretation of the motives of other Scouting volunteers.

 

I would have said it''s more likely to be the hassle factor. Maybe the new volunteer doesn''t have a list of all the insurance levels of all of the drivers. Maybe the council fax machine is busy repeatedly, or maybe it''s a pain to drive an hour to the council office to drop it off. Now, is it a big hassle? No, of course not. But if you add up a whole bunch of small hassles, sometimes people just get frustrated. People get stressed out, end up with a bunch of things to do at the last minute, and decide to let this one go. It''s not like the council office seems to care in the least about the permits, anyway.

 

We do file tour permits. But the hassle factor did lead us to stop caring very much whether our merit badge counselors are registered with council. All the work every year to make sure everyone is registered in all of their badges, and seemingly for no apparent purpose. We only have so much time, and we can decide how we want to devote it to the program. But I don''t think we''re making the decision out of arrogance.

[Eagledad]

>>What''''s the purpose of a tour permit? Probably to let you council know where you are taking your unit & supposedly to ensure the proper traveling procedures are followed.

[Beavah]

My problem with that definition is that almost every act can be called "intentional".

 

Yah, in ordinary English. ''Cept in this context, it ain''t ordinary English. Refers to an intentional tort. That''s two steps above negligence and one step above reckless.

 

Not every intentional tort is necessarily criminal, and finding someone criminally culpable requires a higher standard of proof. For example, physical hazing in a Scouting context is not a criminal offense in most jurisdictions. But a really bad case of physical hazing may well be an intentional tort, as well as a violation of BSA policies. The scouter must have desired to commit harm, or believed that harm was substantially certain to occur from his/her actions.

 

That''s a darn sight different than "intentionally" taking an action that breaches a duty of care (ex. not making kids wear PFDs, etc.) which through a series of circumstances results in an accident. That would be ordinary negligence.

 

Yah, yeh see... da whole thing makes more sense if yeh read it with a funny accent, eh?

 

Beavah

 

[Aquila]

>>> "The ego and arrogance factor is at work."

 

Yes, thanks for that kind interpretation of the motives of other Scouting volunteers.

 

I would have said it''''s more likely to be the hassle factor. Maybe the new volunteer doesn''''t have a list of all the insurance levels of all of the drivers. Maybe the council fax machine is busy repeatedly, or maybe it''''s a pain to drive an hour to the council office to drop it off. Now, is it a big hassle? No, of course not.

 

We do file tour permits. But the hassle factor did lead us to stop caring very much whether our merit badge counselors are registered with council. All the work every year to make sure everyone is registered in all of their badges, and seemingly for no apparent purpose. We only have so much time, and we can decide how we want to devote it to the program. But I don''''t think we''''re making the decision out of arrogance.

[Hunt]

It''s always frustrating to have to fill out a bunch of forms when it''s not clear what purpose they serve. This is the problem, I think, with the tour permit. If nothing on the form is being checked or reviewed before the trip, in what sense is it a "permit?" Perhaps they are checked for egregious problems--i.e., if you proposed to go skydiving. Perhaps BSA''s insurors want the procedure to be in place for some reason. There may be very good reasons for the policy that we don''t know about--but if we don''t know them, two things will happen: (1) some people will decide they don''t need to follow the policy because they don''t know the reason for it, and (2) some people will make up and spread erroneous justifications for the policy. Both of these are problematic, in my opinion.

[Gunny2862]

And there is the rub. As a responsible adult I really prefer to know the reason why I''m doing something rather than hearing, "Because I told you to."

It may be an appropriate answer for a recruit in basic training, a private in certain circumstances - but I cannot fathom how it could be the correct answer for someone who is nominally in charge of delivering the program. And who MAY be in jeopardy of being liable for not complying with any unexplained provisions.

[highcountry]

By chance, the Council just called to inquire how summer camp went. In our converstation I asked tehm about their local tour permit policy and cited examples. The area council told me not to bother with them for one or 2 nite campouts when no water activities or high adventure is involved when we are close to home (within 25 miles appx). We just did a 10 mile hike within 15 miles of our home town and in district, single day event and I was told to not bother woith a permit.

Our troop has shifted it''s activity policies due to a number of reasons, one being the streamlining of preperation. We live in a rural area and have shifted to outdoor activites since they are close to home, eliminate the tour permits, it also makes it easier to recruit parents to drive for just 2 reasons. We have adult leaders trained in YP, Climb on, trek, afloat and swim safe, several ASM''s are fire dept first responders or EMT''s, we have accurate and up to date drivers info, license, seat belt numbers, insurance etc so we are being safe and covering all of our bases.

 

I implemented a simple fix on driver and car data that was not in place previously, all parents who are ever involved in driving are on a spreadsheet our secrataries maintain that lists teh cars, seat belts, driver license, insurance and coverage limits etc. In the past it became a cluster every time a trip occurred as no database of basic info was maintained, a flurry of phone calls was created to get this data for every tour permit. Same thing on med forms, having to get copies of those scouts on that event. Now we just require all SM''s and ASM''s to keep a copy of everyone''s class 3 on them in thei travel scout case at all time adn eliminated teh med form keystone cops episode.

The biggest problem with the tour permits is the changes and having to refax tehm in and ask to get it refaxed back plus busy fax lines. Not a campout goes by that some parent/driver can''t amke it and we have to beg for a fill in and match up scouts to seat belts, then after that we have to amend the TP and refax and get a refax back. Since council does not care about them for close in camps of short duration and no risks, this hassle has been eliminated. We concentrate on covering the car/driver change and make sure teh campot is safe beneficial and fun.

[Beavah]

Not a campout goes by that some parent/driver can''''t amke it and we have to beg for a fill in and match up scouts to seat belts, then after that we have to amend the TP and refax and get a refax back.

 

Oh fer cryin'' out loud. That is not what is supposed to happen. It''s supposed to be a helpful process, not some bizarre exercise in bureaucracy. Minor changes don''t require a new permit. If there''s an issue, just staple your complete list of drivers/cars to the back of every permit and make sure you don''t use anybody not on the list.

 

Beavah